Skip to content

Agenda item

London Grace, 35 Camden Passage, N1 8EA - New premises application

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee noted that hours for Saturday had been applied for but this had been omitted from the front page of the report. The licensing officer reported that documents had been circulated from the applicant.  These would be interleaved with the agenda papers.  Planning permission granted was A1.

 

In response to questions it was confirmed that the licence was conditional on the grant of a Special Treatment Licence.  The applicant stated that planning officers had not suggested that a planning application needed to be made as alcohol was entirely ancillary to the business operation. Following concerns raised regarding future use of the premises the applicant stated that there was a condition that alcohol would only be sold with a beauty treatment and he also agreed that the Special Treatment Licence would be maintained and that this could be conditioned.

 

Two local residents spoke against the application. The Sub-Committee noted that the additional information circulated had only just been received and the interested parties had not had a chance to view this information.  One resident stated that the premise was in a cumulative impact area, in an area where more than 50% of the premises were licensed.  The area was heavily residential and would be affected by noise.  Customers continue drinking very late in a residential area and residents were already suffering from noise from people coming out of bars after 8pm. It was noted that in Time Out it was stated that alcohol was included as an essential part of marketing offering a 2 for 1 cocktails with a nail treatment. This premises should not be in a saturation zone.  The majority of customers would be female who could be noisier than men.  The area was not suitable for a licensed nail bar.  The resident questioned why the licence was being applied for if alcohol was only 8% of turnover.  Another resident stated that the nail bar was situated next to the Elk in the Woods which already generated a lot of noise and was quite unsuitable for licensed premises.  He considered that recent licensing decisions had downgraded the application of the cumulative impact zone.  The Applestat licence had been refused for cumulative impact reasons but other licences had been granted since.  All of these had food with drink. He stated that the resident living above the premises had also objected but had not attended the meeting.  He asked that the Sub-Committee reject the application. 

 

The applicant stated that he understood the concerns regarding cumulative impact although these were concerns for the late night economy with premises closing after 11pm.  This application was not for this type of business and was not a front to become a bar.  Earlier licensing times had been applied for on a Saturday.  The cumulative impact policy was designed to give control over applications.  The premises would be offering tea/ coffee and a variety of snacks.  Customers could come for baby showers and could have a glass of wine with a treatment.  Some customers would not want their nails done but would want to be part of the group and have a drink with other guests. There were other premises in similar areas which had no problems.  If this premises caused problems the licence could be reviewed and revoked if necessary. The applicant asked that the licence be granted with the amendment to the condition proposed. 

 

In response to questions it was noted that the last order on Thursday and Friday was 9pm and clients would be expected to leave at 9.45pm. Larger groups would generally be 11/12 people and these would normally attend on a Saturday.  The premises would be closing at 8pm on a Saturday and wedding groups tended to attend as an opening activity to their day.  Parties would need to order a food package, either afternoon tea or a brunch.  Clients usually had one drink and then moved on.  They would prefer customers not to stay as there would be other customers coming in. The basement had the treatment tables and would be used for groups of customers.  Nail treatments would be upstairs. The hours for the supply of alcohol would commence from 11am to allow for brunch parties. Regarding a questions about loud hen parties it was noted that parties typically were 11/12 people in size and there generally would not be more than 25 people in the premises.  An event host would work with the party who would be dedicated to them until leaving.  Parties were often at the weekend and did not run until the end of the day. The host would ensure parties left in a timely manner.  The host would accompany customers and get their coats and see them out the door. This would not be a venue of choice for a raucous hen party.  The last party would be booked between 2 – 3pm for afternoon tea.  If customers were drunk they reserved their right not to serve them.  It was accepted that, realistically 40 customers would be very tight in the space.  They did not want a vertical drinking space for customers and the applicant agreed to amend proposed condition 16 to read 30 customers and not 40.

 

In summary, one resident stated that it may be possible for the premises to sometimes be a party venue without guests having a treatment.  It was clarified that there was a condition restricting the number of guests who did not have a treatment. The resident stated that therefore groups could have half the customers having a treatment and half not.  Another informed the Sub-Committee that this was the wrong type of establishment.  The customers from the Elk in the Woods often stood outside to decide where to go next.  He was not satisfied with the food offer.  Advice needed to be sought from planning regarding the relationship with alcohol.  He was deeply concerned regarding the cumulative impact zone and that all additional grants would add to the impact on the zone.  He hoped that this application would be rejected.

 

The applicant stated that the nail bar would be there and the Sub-Committee must consider whether it would be inappropriate to grant the licence.  This was not a licence to be granted for the late night economy and was entirely appropriate considering the hours and nature of the operation.

 

RESOLVED

1)       That the application for a new premises licence, in respect of London Grace, 35 Camden Passage, London, N1 8EA, be granted to allow:-

 

a)   The sale of alcohol on the premises on Monday to Wednesday from 11am to 9.30pm, on Thursday and Friday from 11am to 10.30pm on Saturday from 11am until 08.30pm and on Sunday from 11am until 4.30 pm. 

b)           The opening hours of the premises are Monday to Wednesday from 9am to 10pm on Thursday and Friday from 9am until 11pm, on Saturday from 9am to 9pm and on Sunday from 9am until 5pm.

c)           Non-standards timings on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve from 9am until 10.30pm.

d)           To permit the premises to be open for licensable activities for pre-booked private parties from 9am.

 

2)       That conditions detailed on pages 41 and 42 of the agenda be applied to the licence with the following amendments:-

 

Condition 17 to read – The licence shall not have any effect unless the premises has been granted a Massage and Special Treatments licence issued by the London Borough of Islington. The Special Treatment licence shall be maintained.

 

Condition 16 to read – The capacity of the premises shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 customers.

 

Additional condition – Prominent, clear and legible notices must be displayed on the premises requesting the public to respect the needs of local residents and to leave the premises and the area quietly.

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Sub-Committee listened to all the evidence and submissions and read all the material. The Sub-Committee reached the decision having given consideration to the Licensing Act 2003, as amended, and its regulations, the national guidance and the Council’s Licensing Policy.

 

The Sub-Committee took into consideration Licensing Policy 1 and 2 and Home Office guidance paragraphs 14:20, 14:30 and 14:36.  The premises fall within the Angel cumulative impact area.  Licensing policy 2 creates a rebuttable presumption that applications for new premises licences that are likely to add to the existing cumulative impact will normally be refused, unless an applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact or otherwise impact adversely on the promotion of the licensing objectives.  Home Office guidance paragraph 14 states that a special policy should never be absolute and should always allow for the circumstances of each application to be considered properly and for applications unlikely to add to the cumulative impact on the licensing objectives to be granted. 

 

Licensing policy 2, paragraph 34-38, emphasises the thriving night time economy, the late night alcohol related crime and disorder, late night visitors to the area within the Angel and Upper Street cumulative impact area and concludes that any further expansion in the night time economy should not be permitted adversely to affect the quality of life for residents.  Paragraph 4 stated that the circumstance of each application would be considered on its merits and paragraph 6 gave an example of applications of which the licensing authority considered might be exceptional including small premises with a capacity of 50 persons or less and premises which are not alcohol led and which only operate within the hours specified in Licensing Policy 8.

 

There were no representations from responsible authorities and the basement was regarded as satisfactory for the arrangements proposed.  However, the Sub-Committee heard representations from residents about noise nuisance potentially being caused by groups of inebriated people leaving the premises and standing, talking in the street. For that reason, the Sub-Committee considered it appropriate and proportionate to the licensing objectives to impose a condition requiring the display of signs advising people to leave quietly.

The Sub-Committee noted that the hours sought were within the hours specified in licensing policy 8 and extended only to 10.30pm on Thursday and Friday evenings. The premises were not alcohol led and the consumption of alcohol was constrained by the requirements of carrying out beauty treatments on clients. Although the operating schedule spoke of parties, these parties consisted of clients for beauty treatment with one guest per client. Parties would only meet in the basement and provided with a limited amount of alcohol per person with food.  The food would be provided by an outside caterer.  A condition was agreed that the capacity would be limited to 30 people but generally speaking the premises did not operate to full capacity and would essentially be a nail bar with a special treatment licence, not a drinking establishment.

Clients and their visitors would not be encouraged to remain in the premises after the treatment because of the business turnover. The condition requiring a Special Treatment licence was strengthened by the requirement that the licence be maintained avoiding the risk that the premises might turn into a drinking establishment by stealth. 

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that for these reasons and with the additional conditions, granting the premises licence was unlikely to add to the existing cumulative effect and it was proportionate, appropriate to the licensing objectives and in the public interest to grant the premises licence.

 

Supporting documents: